A rchive Date
[ 23-05-2005 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ U.S ]
|
[Winning is the only thing
By GEORGE JONAS - Toronto Sun
November 23, 2000
Two words that have cropped up in the media almost as frequently as "chad" following the U.S. presidential elections have been "mandate" and "legitimacy."
Pundits wonder whether the new president will have a mandate to govern, whether Republican George W. Bush or Democrat Al Gore gets the nod from - well, whoever the nod may come from in this bizarre election: the voters, Florida's vote counters, the courts, or the House of Representatives.
Some commentators have suggested the winner could end up the loser under these circumstances. A presidency viewed as illegitimate by half the electorate may face insurmountable difficulties. This could be especially troublesome for Gore, because as a Democratic president he'd be facing a Congress whose slight Republican majority could bring his administration to a standstill or reduce it to a veto machine.
Columnist John O'Sullivan takes the long view, perhaps with a vengeance. He argues convincingly in National Review that the presidency would be so burdensome and destructive for Gore and the Democratic party that letting them have it would be "a blessing in disguise" for Bush and the Republicans.
I think if the legitimacy of the next president is put in any jeopardy, it won't be because of the closeness of the election. In a system that decides by simple plurality, as the American system does, even one vote gives the winner a clear mandate. The narrowest margin confers legitimacy, while even a landslide doesn't entitle the winner to assume dictatorial powers.
A liberal democracy under the rule of law permits the symbolic power of a single vote to legitimize an office holder. At the same time, no electoral victory can be overwhelming enough to let an office holder enlarge, or act outside, the authority of his office. Constitutional divisions of power circumscribe any U.S. administration regardless of the number of votes that put a president into the oval office.
Should the legitimacy of the new U.S. president be questioned by half the electorate, it won't be because half the electorate voted against him. It will be because he'll be viewed as having achieved his office by trickery.
Winning an election by the narrowest of margins doesn't impair anyone's mandate in the U.S. Stealing an election does.
Gore and Bush both risk being perceived as having stolen the election. Whether either of them will be depends on the event that finally puts either into office. Right now, with the Florida Supreme Court having decided to let local officials hand-count ballots in three counties to their own standards, Gore faces the bigger risk. Winning by cherry-picking spoiled ballots from three Democratic counties whose "dimpled" or "pregnant" chads can then be interpreted as Gore votes by Democratic officials, smells of electoral theft to many Americans.
Counting every vote is fine; manufacturing or divining votes is a different story. Gore may become the first president elected not by America's voters, but America's dimpled chads.
It was a fluke that created the opportunity for such skulduggery. Spoiled ballots and such occur in all elections. They're seldom less than 0.1% of the total. They rarely matter, because even a narrow win usually amounts to 0.5% - i.e., about 30,000 votes out of six million in terms of this presidential contest in Florida. Pregnant chads come into play only in elections where the margin of error is greater than the margin of victory.
The really interesting thing about this U.S. election is the almost symmetrical way in which it divided the country. Beyond the mathematical oddity that lets a contest of about 100 million voters come down to a statistical dead heat of 930 votes, there's an equally amazing dead heat in social vision.
Neither Bush nor Gore is at the extreme end of his party's political spectrum. A rather moderate Republican, Bush is far cry from Sen. Jesse Helms. While not so moderate a Democrat, Gore is still some distance from the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Yet even this moderate Republican and moderate Democrat illustrate a clear division between two paths.
One is the path Americans have walked since their country's inception: individual liberty under the rule of law. The other path is one that those who came here sought to escape: tutelage by a benevolent (or not so benevolent) state. It's fascinating that as the 21st century begins Americans seem split right down the middle about which way to proceed.
Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@sunpub.com. Jonas, author and producer, appears Thursdays
 World Fact Book (CIA))]
|